Another day, another closet

[elfs]

I don't know if I've ever actually said this in my journal, but since it came out recently I should jump out of this closet. At a recent dinner get-together someone asked me about my politics since it wasn't terribly clear; I have claimed to be a conservative, yet I have strong feelings about what many people perceive as "liberal" issues. It wasn't obvious to them if I was a Democrat or a Republican or what.

I'm an anarchist.

To be clear, I'm not one of those bomb-tossing disarchists who call themselves anarchist but who in reality are little more than bomb-tossing, Starbucks-wrecking adolenscents who sit around smoking dope and wishing for an end to The Man. But the principles by which I try to make political decisions are primarily anarchist principles.

Anarchism contrasts itself from its opposite, Statism. Statism is the blanket term for all the existing government forms we have: communism, republicanism, democratism, totalitariansm, and so forth on. All of these systems, no matter what, have one overarching characteristic: in all of them there exists an authority (in totalitarian systems, an armed force; in representative systems, "the people") that grants to one societal institution ("the state") a monopoly power: the power to use initiatory violence with impunity.

In short, the government is the only institution we have that, if you make it mad enough, will send armed agents to your door to "correct" you.

This is the primary lens through which I view all legislation and the elections of all legislators. One of the early lessons of Discordianism is that every new law creates new criminals. Laws exist to outlaw something either by prescription or proscription. Anyone doing that something before the law passed was not a criminal; afterward, they are.

Every proposal brought before the legislature or the people needs to be judged on this simple basis: do you feel strongly enough about whatever it is that you believe someone, somewhere should be shot dead for it? If not, don't vote to make it a law.

In a representative republic, the people authorize an organization to ensure that the people live under stable conditions. Anarchism argues that that is merely a layer of inefficiency; if people are capable of governing themselves by interposing government between themselves and others, they should be capable of governing themselves just as well without it. Government is a layer which promotes the concentration-- and therefore the abuse-- of power.

Given the current working conditions I have to accept that anarchism as a socially organizing force is damnably unlikely. Too many people insist that they (and by extension they want to include "you") require some sort of "big daddy" to keep their baser natures in check. So many, in fact, that convincing them that their neighbors mean them no harm is impossible.

But that mild despair is no reason not to be an anarchist, any more than the popularity of religious thought be it mainstream Christianity or as loopy as the Psychic Friends Network is a good reason to not be an atheist. It is no contradiction to be a law-abiding anarchist; one can have principles and apply them to one's politics without likewise advocating the violent overthrow of city hall.

Anarchism right now means questioning every law that enters any legislature that governs you and asking yourself the anarchist questions: Is this law about more, or less, freedom? Does this law concentrate power or place it into the hands of citizens? And finally, does this law really address a problem the only solution to which is the application of the State's unique monopoly power, deadly force?

Anarchism is the most hopeful of all political ideologies, one that believes that someday humanity will be grown up enough to govern itself responsibly without the imposition of a superstructure. I'm hopeful that someday we might even get there. Until then, I'll continue to raise the black flag.

Comments

See?

[scyllacat.livejournal.com]

This. This right here. Aside from furries, sex, Japanese cartoons I don't understand, or fiction, this is why I read you.

If that's an anarchist, that's what I am. Possibly for different reasons. I think some things can't GET done without concentrating power. I think that power tends to clump. (One example would be "Lost" a coupla weeks ago when Hurley points out to Sawyer that people are looking to him for leadership, and how he behaves is affecting them -- whether he wants it or not.)

But I agree -- and have all but jumped up on tables trying to explain this -- that the difference between the Government and the PTA/band club/any group with rules and procedures, is that the Government is the one group authorized to use force to Make It So. Therefore, I'm against giving the government (and really, as a libertarian, believe it to be fraudulent and Unreal) power to harm or force anyone for _any_ reason that I or another individual would not harm or force another.

I could go on and agree with a lot more words, but I'll just wave the IAW-flag and go find a Jolly Roger icon.

Re: See?

[elfs.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but after that simple definition ("anarchists without adjectives," we call ourselves) you start getting into the pissing match about "who owns anarchism," with the anarcho-capitalists on one side, and the anarcho-communists on the other, both claiming that the other is a "fake" form of anarchism that leads to totalitarianism. I'm with Rothbard and Friedman generally, but really, that is a pissing match I don't want to participate in.

I just want people to think hard about the choices they make when they vote.

Libertarian Socialism

[mikstera.livejournal.com]

There are plenty of web sites dedicated to Libertarian Socialism (aka Anarchism) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). It's a very attractive philosophy, and just the sort of arrangement you'd expect from a post-Scarcity civilization (e.g. The Culture, Pendor). It's certainly my top pick of "ways to live", but IMO requires a high enough technology (or mediocre tech + a very low population density) to make everyone truly self-sufficient. I'm still not sure how well I think this philosophy will deal with primate instincts towards the formation of social hierarchies and the climbing of same, but I remain hopeful... not to mention that nothing says we have to keep those instincts as is in the human germ line.

[halloranelder.livejournal.com]

Wow!

That made a hell of a lot of sense.

Please excuse me while I sit in the corner and think.

[mouser.livejournal.com]

One of the early lessons of Discordianism is that every new law creates new criminals. Laws exist to outlaw something either by prescription or proscription. Anyone doing that something before the law passed was not a criminal; afterward, they are.

Actually, with one exception, the Bill of Rights plus all the amendments are mostly meant to ensure your rights instead of taking them away. (The one exception didn't last.)

I understand your point of view, and to a lesser extent I agree with it. The point where I don't agree is where I think there IS a purpose (and a good one) to have some level of big brother (note the lower case). The big brother I refer to is the one that keeps the bullies from beating you up and taking your lunch money, and gives you a hand back on your feet if life knocks the crap out of you. (And then looks at you like the annoying little brother and tells you to go play with your friends and quit bugging him.)

That's my point of view, anyway.

[kenshardik]

[I]f people are capable of governing themselves by interposing government between themselves and others, they should be capable of governing themselves just as well without it.

That is a really big "if". There are days when I don't trust my fellow man to vote for the best performer on "American Idol" let alone who should run the country.

I'm not quite sure what my ideal form of government is. I know I have some socialist leanings (I had a real hard time with TANSTAAFL in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls") and I'm generally in favor of "big government" keeping its nose out of local affairs (like who people like to fuck, which drugs they like to take, etc.). I am not well-read enough to really know if anarchy works on a large scale (like, say, the state of New York) so I am not a major proponent of anarchy.

[edichka2.livejournal.com]

I would counter that I distrust the private sector just about as much as I do the public sector. The latter has the force of law behind its concentration of power, but it also (here) has a significant degree of accountability to the citizenry and, in principle, the public interest in mind. Concentrations of power in private hands too often translates to corporate nastiness and crazy people with guns. I honestly prefer some checks and balances between the two domains, though I prefer to side with liberty over restriction.

Nicely stated, though.

Cheers,
- Eddie

[ibsulon.livejournal.com]

Could someone read the journal entries without getting that impression? :D

There are two fundamental counterarguments on which I'd love to hear a response. I love the idea of anarchism as a principle, but:

1. The human is not a species of the individual, but of the tribe. Today, these tribes are abstracted into identities and families and friends, but the hermit still is a rare creature. I can't find the article I recently read, but the fundamental assertion is that we're only fundamentally able to see a limited amount of people as that -- people. We see the politics of "the other" and the demonization and characterization of individuals, and the fundamental piece of that is the human failing to comprehend 7 billion people as individual lives, each as complex as our own.

2. With Pendor, an assertion is that the human is competing for resources, and that is the fundamental force drawing humans into groups by non-consensual force. Why, then, do we see such fierce jockeying for power in places where resources are held (relatively) constant, such as the French court or even prison? It seems that people, when not faced with meeting basic needs, gravitate to a desire for power. In a non-statist society, what stops a group of individuals from asserting such power over a less organized force?

Anarchism seems to appeal to our higher selves, but becomes impractical due to our horrible flaws as humans. I tend to think in a world with no resource/space problem (the Pendor scenario) we would revert to an enlightened tribalism. It just seems to be how we're wired.

Wow, I was really tired when I wrote that. :)

[ibsulon.livejournal.com]

I think my points are lucid enough, but I can elaborate and bring in sources if necessary. However, I did want to also say that most of us in general would prefer anarchy, but the social contract is safer in a tribalistic species, where the same group arguing about government telling you what to do in the 90s came in and voted in dominionists.

[orcaarrow.livejournal.com]

I don't actually believe that people are smart enough to govern themselves. I think that at one point we were, but by and large we have grown too used to having someone do our thinking for us.

Re: Anarchy or idealism?

[mjtheanarchist.livejournal.com]

You have a well-written response. In fact, your arguments are the same I used before researching anarchy and becoming an anarchist myself. I would like to share with you some of my views and contrast them with yours (and my pre-anarchy views.) The main point of this reply is at the end, so feel free to jump ahead there, if you like. Otherwise, I'll address things in the order you have them in your comment.

Let's start with the principle/practice assertion. Being an anarchist in principle and a statist in practice is like being a virgin in principle and a whore in practice. It just doesn't work that way.

Total freedom does indeed imply total responsibility. And people do indeed strive for preservation and often dominance. But there's a bit missing here. Responsibility and self-preservation include proactive defense and, in some cases, arbitration and seeking recompensation for losses. Just as we are responsible not to harm anyone, we are responsible to protect ourselves from those who seek to harm us.

Your assertion that the state ensures self-correction is without grounds. How is a dictatorship self-correcting? And by what degree do you measure the self-correction? For clarity, let's contrast this idea with a system that does in fact have self-correction built in as a fundamental core: capitalism. Under a government, error correction is limited by the governmentally enforced channels, and correction is slow, very slow. Errors are also *enforced* by the government. If a bad law is passed, it takes time to get it repealed. Until then, the bad legislation is forced on the people. Compare this with an anarcho-capitalist system, under which error correction is almost immediate. There aren't laws; however, there are products and services. If there is an error in a service, profits suffer. There is no forcing the product on the people...they either buy or they don't.

In fact, a government can be seen as a highly ineffective and unfriendly business. Payments (taxes) are taken by force and services are provided, also by force. It's as if Wal-Mart were to knock on your door, take an amount of money they decide to take, and leave whatever goods they wanted you to have. But you get to vote in the yearly stockholder meeting!

I understand where you are coming from. Like I mentioned earlier, I used to have almost the same view. Your argument wishes that people were good at the core, while it assumes that people are bad. (It covers all the bases.) This is why you advocate the system that you do.

Now for the heart of my argument--the main point. I would point out that the innate goodness/badness of humanity has been debated since the beginnings of philosophy, and I doubt anyone has or can give a satisfying answer. What we want, what we desperately need, is a system that works independently of a human tendency towards good or evil. We want a system in which it doesn't matter if people are basically altruistic or self-interested. Anarchy (specifically anarcho-capitalism) could be such a system, because it prevents a monopoly of power (government) while providing mechanisms for reward (profit) of those who offer what people want/need and punishment (loss of profit) of those who do not offer what people want/need.

I don't believe that any system can be ideal. We are not machines. (Heck, even machine systems break.) However, I am fully convinced that anarchy does give the greatest *possibility* for human happiness. I further believe that it is achievable and sustainable, and that is why I took the time to draft this reply.

Re: Anarchy or idealism - PART 2

[zanfur.livejournal.com]

My beliefs lie with yours, though I haven't seen them put so clearly before now.